In a current discussion of whether or not a woman should be willing to take money from her porn-star sister for the education of her children (me--yes, duh) it comes about that various members of the comm that's discussing it believe that the woman has no right to refuse the money.

Now, I'm of the opinion that anyone who puts 25K in trust for a child's education (or, in this case, 3 children's) should pretty much be thanked (unless they're, oh, an assassin, or they got it by defrauding a pension plan, or otherwise stole it, in which case I can totally see the moral quandry.)

But it really bugs me: These people are saying she hasn't got the right to say no. That she hasn't got the right to "deprive" her kids. To "prevent" them from going to college.

1. Seriously, if you're determined to do it, you'll be able to go. You may have a few gazillion dollars of debt when you come out the far end and maybe you didn't go to Harvey Mudd Harvard, but you'll be able to go.

2. Not allowed to deprive? So, if I told my theoretical kid they couldn't have the cookies their aunt brought, I'm in the wrong? What if the cookies contain something that the kid is allergic to? Parents say no to things all the time, they "deprive" their children of all manner of things -- from food to philosophy -- constantly. How, exactly, is saying no to a college fund started with "immoral" money all that different?

But vasaris you can't possibly be conflating college funds with cookies?

Why not? Neither college nor a cookie is a right. Maybe the cookie isn't poisonous. Maybe the money isn't stained by unseemly fluids. But, if I was a parent, wouldn't it be up to me to decide?

It doesn't matter that I think that the woman saying "Um, you earned that money on your back, I can't take it" is bogus. I'm not teaching those kids my morals. She's teaching them hers. As such, she has the right to control the "cookie" that she thinks is contaminated by things detrimental to her children.

Indeed, my first reaction is that outsiders aren't in a position to tell her what to do.

However, on further reflection, I'm not so sure. Parents have a responsibility to care for their children, not just a moral one, but a legal one. If the money is given to the children, then she's acting as a caretaker for that money, and refusing it is probably improper. The children would even have a right to sue her later for mismanagement of funds.

As a practical matter, I'd leave well enough alone. I really don't need to be interfering.

Realistically, there are some interesting legal issues -- it may depend on state, but minors technically can't own much, including money, unless their parents allow them to. Anecdotally, I've encountered people whose parents raided college funds (college funds set up by the minors and being paid into by the minors) because where they were, the minor didn't actually own the money they were earning.

There's also the question of whether the money has been given to the minors in question (I've no idea of the ages involved), given to the parents for the children (which, unless there's a contract of some kind, doesn't really bind the receiver to much), or set up as a trust for the children (which would be ideal -- but is then something where I'm not convinced the parents could break anyway.)

Still, I think what's bothering me the most is that I'm fairly certain no one is legally required to take money that's offered to them. I might think a person is crazy for saying no to a free college fund for my non-existent kid, but I don't think the parents are outside of their rights to say no.

That'd be a Uniform Gifts (Transfers?) to Minors sort of gift. Possible, and probably the right form if the aunt is trying to pay for future college educations. Essentially, there's a pretty standard way to give assets to minors where you don't have to do all the work of setting up a trust.